What's your beef against Social Democracy? [Archive]

Decolonize The Left

19th February 2011, 00:24

I've noticed that Social Democrats are restricted here. :(

Just curious why do you think the Social Democracy economic system is not a good choice? Is it just because you all just hate roses? ;)

In the first place, social democracy is an ideology, not an economic system. It comments on the modern capitalist system by attempting to reform it to bring it in line with what it conceives as 'social justice.'

In short, it is not revolutionary, but reformist. So that is why social democrats are restricted, because this is a forum for the revolutionary left and social democracy is not a part of the revolutionary left.

If you'd like to know more about why revolutionary leftists disagree with social democrats, you can begin with any critique of the capitalist system of economics, and from there understand why we wish to see the working class control the means of production.

- August

thesadmafioso

19th February 2011, 00:25

I can't say I have any issue with the concept of social democracy in a limited sense, but it is not something which should be an end goal in itself. In a temporary role it would certainly serve to be an improvement in most any capitalist nation, though it should not be viewed as something to be maintained permanently.

B5C

19th February 2011, 00:38

In the first place, social democracy is an ideology, not an economic system. It comments on the modern capitalist system by attempting to reform it to bring it in line with what it conceives as 'social justice.'

I was referring JUST the economic part of the ideology. Sorry to get confused.

hatzel

19th February 2011, 00:39

I was referring JUST the economic part of the ideology. Sorry to get confused.

So: we're anti-capitalists round here :)

B5C

19th February 2011, 00:44

So: we're anti-capitalists round here :)

I know some here believe were not too tough against the free market. Well I don't believe that the United States is not ready for Socialism or Communist yet. I rather have a fully regulated market than state owned market. The socialist state can be corrupted like an capitalist state. As of now I rather have the middle ground.

Also I oppose a violent revolutions. Socialist revolutions tend to be violent.

#FF0000

19th February 2011, 00:49

Ele'ill

19th February 2011, 00:50

All revolutions tend to be violent.

PhoenixAsh

19th February 2011, 00:50

1). see all posts above
2). social democrats side with power, they pretend to care but instead they are just as repressive, enslaving and power hungry as the whole lot of the capitalist....and when it suits them they switch sides as they see fit. In fact they are the worst kind of class traitors you can have.

hatzel

19th February 2011, 00:56

In fact they are the worst kind of class traitors you can have.

Even worse than third-worldists?!?!?! :scared:

#FF0000

19th February 2011, 00:56

Even worse than third-worldists?!?!?! :scared:

It's not like they ever have any power tho :mellow:

hatzel

19th February 2011, 00:59

Tru dat...

Le Socialiste

19th February 2011, 01:08

I take issue with its insistence that we keep the capitalistic modes of production. Revolutionary theory calls for the complete dismantlement of such structures. If anything, it strikes me as too reformist/opportunist. Is that to say its adherents should be restricted? No, but at the same time I don't view them favorably.

B5C

19th February 2011, 01:26

How do you make a place ready for Communism?

Gradual steps. Like for example the United States. Social Democracy -> Socialism -> Communism.

~17 people died in the Bolshevik revolution, iirc. The violent part, if I have this right, was the civil war afterwards that was started by the counter-revolutionary Whites.

You can't call one battle a revolution. The Civil War was started by the whites. No one died during the Boston Tea Party, but that wasn't a revolution. The Revolution didn't end until after the war.

The Revolution wasn't complete until 1923 and 2 million casualties were the result.

So, in that situation, would you oppose the working class taking up arms to defend their lives, homes, and their Revolution?

Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, and the Egyptian revolution shown us how peacefull revolution can happen.

If violence does happen. I will not pick up a gun. It is not my way.

Revolution starts with U

19th February 2011, 01:28

I'm gona pick up a few spears and a bow and arrow and run out there naked! THAT's MY way :mad:

youpeople

19th February 2011, 01:34

Also I oppose a violent revolutions. Socialist revolutions tend to be violent.
Violence though it isn't the aim of a proletarian revolution, is the reasonable thing to expect from a process through which conflicting interests are taken to their conclusion...

By attempting a 'non-violence' revolution you will get nowhere, if you do (which you will not) you would willingly be putting people on your side at greater risk of death or injury, for the sake of liberal values. The only revolution in which non-violence could work is a revolution that is purely cosmetic.

In the context of social unrest, violence is productive, the press nor the government tolerate this productive expression of discontent, they prefer 'peaceful protests', it presents no threat and kindly asks the ruling class to "please consider".

#FF0000

19th February 2011, 01:36

Gradual steps. Like for example the United States. Social Democracy -> Socialism -> Communism.

So, what happens between Social Democracy and Socialism/Communism? Do the Ruling classes voluntarily hand over their privilege?

You can't call one battle a revolution. The Civil War was started by the whites. No one died during the Boston Tea Party, but that wasn't a revolution. The Revolution didn't end until after the war.

The Revolution wasn't complete until 1923 and 2 million casualties were the result.

Fair enough. Some people include the Civil War, some don't, for whatever reason. However, it wasn't the Bolsheviks who went out and started killing people. The workers ousted Kerensky's provisional government, and were met with overwhelming violence in response. The workers, then, acted in self-defense.

Only the most

Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, and the Egyptian revolution shown us how peacefull revolution can happen.

Nothing you've mentioned here has anything to do with a revolution in which one class overthrows another. And in the case of India's independence, there was far more to it than just Gandhi. A lot of people were actually fighting.

If violence does happen. I will not pick up a gun. It is not my way.

And if more people will come to harm as a result of your self-righteous adherence to the most extreme sort of pacifism? What then?

youpeople

19th February 2011, 01:37

... and the Egyptian revolution shown us how peacefull revolution can happen.
Over 350 people died...

Sentinel

19th February 2011, 01:40

I posted this in your intro thread earlier. I was hoping for it to be merged with the intro thread here in OI, but I guess it's not necessary now.

So, would you consider yourself a left wing social democrat, like Olof Palme, or a third way man like Tony Blair? If the former, you are in a dead end as your politics are dead and buried since 30 years back. If the latter, well then you aren't a leftist, really.

My organisation, the CWI, worked within the socdem/labour parties around the world in an attempt to force them to turn left, but in the 90's the decision was made that there was simply no point anymore, the politics of social democrat parties had become bourgeois to the core and no longer stood for the interests of the working class.

In Sweden the party is now in crisis, with lowest support since the beginning of the last century. This is is the result of a fundamental change in soc dem politics. It was they who started selling out the public property , infrastructure etc to private owners in the 90's, and the current bourgeois govt is only continuing in their footsteps.

From being the largest party with periodic support around 50%, they now only get around 25%, and there is no end in sight in this downward spiral. The right wing of the party -- the third way people -- dominates internal debate so they can't move back to their roots and start pushing for welfare reforms again. At the same time their voters are leaving en masse.

And as the voters are confused due to only rightwing alternatives being presented -- the Left party is also compromising their ideas, talking about how there isn't a working class anymore and how a 'modern (bourgeois) view of class' needs to be adapted -- they vote either for the conservatives who promise to cut taxes for the workers as well as the rich, or for the racist ultraright which uses populist rhetoric.

This development has lead to a giant dip in living standards and in practice the death of the so called nordic model -- now it's every man for himself here, just like the the bourgeoisie wants it. In short, when it comes to reaching the original goal -- socialism -- social democratic reformism has been proven to be at least as much a failure as the authoritarian regimes of the east bloc.

So what is your take on this development? Could it have been avoided? Should it have been avoided, or do you perhaps even consider it 'inevitable', or outright support it..?

B5C

19th February 2011, 01:44

Over 350 people died...

Yeah, but the revolution was mostly peaceful. There will be some fighting, but the Egyptian revolution was no Russian nor French Revolution.

We could had an French Revolution and I am glad that never happen.

#FF0000

19th February 2011, 01:46

Yeah, but the revolution was mostly peaceful. There will be some fighting, but the Egyptian revolution was no Russian nor French Revolution.

It was no Russian Revolution because the protesters weren't met with over 2,000,000 counter revolutionary soliders plus another 100,000 American/British/Canadian soldiers in response.

Ele'ill

19th February 2011, 01:46

Perhaps I'm misinformed but hasn't the Egyptian 'revolution' really been a series of aggressive demonstrations (where people were gunned down) and where workers called for a general strike etc but where a new 'leader' was put into power? How has this changed what the people wanted changed? Was their error in leader replacement? Will things be better? Was it the leader or the system in place that was the problem? Both?

Revolution starts with U

19th February 2011, 01:48

I applaud the Egyptian people in their efforts, but a regime change is no revolution.

#FF0000

19th February 2011, 01:50

I applaud the Egyptian people in their efforts, but a regime change is no revolution.

Eh, depends on your definition. To avoid semantic arguments, let's just make it clear that we communists generally define "revolution" as the transition from one mode of production to another, where one class overthrows another,

Ele'ill

19th February 2011, 01:51

Yeah, I think the point is that if they wanted a revolution the tactics would have had to move past what they were doing- they were still under military control- they were still being shot to death by police- they were still facing violence from old regime groupies-

I fail to see how peace fits into that equation as a tactic to move forward.

PhoenixAsh

19th February 2011, 02:48

Yeah, but the revolution was mostly peaceful. There will be some fighting, but the Egyptian revolution was no Russian nor French Revolution.

We could had an French Revolution and I am glad that never happen.

The revolution also did not change a thing.

There never has, never will be any substantial change without those in authority and power using violence. The only reason why the situation in Egypt did not turn violent was simply because the army was told not to use force by their biggest benefactor (you know...those 1.3 billion dollars annualy everybody is talking about) and refused orders from their own government (you know...the ones who released prisoners and ordered them to attack protesters and who ordered the security police to attack and quell the demonstrators). And the government officials are really trying to figure out a way to deal with one hand tied behind their backs...

IF however the government would have held its ground...how long do you think the protests would have remained peaceful?

Manic Impressive

19th February 2011, 03:09

Gradual steps. Like for example the United States. Social Democracy -> Socialism -> Communism.
Name me one current social democratic party which wants to transfer to a classless society where the means of production is in control of the workers?

Social Democracy is about reforming capitalism. When workers struggles look like they might turn into any kind of support for a real change states introduce some reforms to calm people down it really doesn't matter which party is in power right or centre left if they are worried by worker agitation then they'll give up a tiny piece of the pie it's self preservation.

Social Democracy as an ideology has been more damaging to the working class than almost any other. It brings workers away from revolutionary politics like a tranquillizer instead of actually educating them about oppression.

The Labour Party (UK) is a great example of how social democracy fucks everything up. In the original constitution of the Labour party there is the infamous clause 4 which was one of the founding rules of the party. Which in it's beginning was comprised of both socialists of all kinds including many Marxists and a few liberals. They had a vote at a meeting around the time of their formation on whether to adhear to socialist principles or libertarian ones the vote was something like 90% in favour of going the socialist route. Which is why clause 4 was introduced.

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or serviceBy successive Labour leaders clause 4 was over looked until finally Tony Blair had it removed in 1995. Social Democracy in it's infancy was a good idea albeit an unrealistic one. Although today social democracy has absolutely nothing to do with socialism or true democracy.

Democratic Socialism on the other hand is not a restricted tendency on this site, as their goal is to overthrow capitalism but by using bourgeois parliamentary methods. They are also idealistic and naive but advocate the overthrow of capitalism but just by different means. Ideally in a dream world I doubt even the most hardened Maoist would not prefer a bloodless revolution, but they, like most of us here know it just ain't gonna happen.

PhoenixAsh

19th February 2011, 03:20

In the recent past...last two decades or so. Social democrats have been instrumental...if not (as in many cases) the leading agents...in tearing down the social welfare state, enacting laws that counter act free speech and civil liberties, and dismanteling workers rights.

That should give you some clues as to what social democracy is really about...putting a rose in your logo really doesn't make things better.

crazyirish93

19th February 2011, 03:38

Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, and the Egyptian revolution shown us how peacefull revolution can happen.

If violence does happen. I will not pick up a gun. It is not my way.

im pretty sure people died in all those "Revolutions" :laugh:

Ele'ill

19th February 2011, 03:57

Gandhi's struggle wasn't successful

Lt. Ferret

19th February 2011, 04:04

did a trotskyist just claim that social democracy as a theory was dead?

because i can look at a host of social democratic countries with incredibly high living standards. i cant point to a trotskyist government. ever.

Thug Lessons

19th February 2011, 04:07

All revolutions tend to be violent.
A revolution is not a LAN party, or making a post, or watching an anime, or owning a nub. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class of player characters overthrows another.

Lt. Ferret

19th February 2011, 04:13

iunno the way i own nubs at anime lan parties is pretty revolutionary.

Ele'ill

19th February 2011, 04:16

A revolution is not a LAN party, or making a post, or watching an anime, or owning a nub. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class of player characters overthrows another.

What's your point in relation to what I said

Edit- oh I see, there actually wasn't one.

Milk Sheikh

19th February 2011, 05:15

Ele'ill

19th February 2011, 05:21

Anything built upon violence will collapse sooner or later. Revolutions are no exceptions. What's accomplished through violence will be undone by violence. Only a society based upon pacifism can survive.

How would a society based upon pacifism, and by based on I assume you mean a strict adherence to pacifism, survive violence? What in your mind would a pacifist revolution look like?

Milk Sheikh

19th February 2011, 08:03

How would a society based upon pacifism, and by based on I assume you mean a strict adherence to pacifism, survive violence? What in your mind would a pacifist revolution look like?

Means and end are one and the same. If the revolution is violent, then the society it wishes to establish will be equally violent. It's like replacing one dictator with another, one barbaric regime with another; only names change, but the situation doesn't.

Ele'ill

19th February 2011, 08:11

I'm still interested in your answer to my original question.

How would a society based upon pacifism, and by based on I assume you mean a strict adherence to pacifism, survive violence? What in your mind would a pacifist revolution look like?

Means and end are one and the same. If the revolution is violent, then the society it wishes to establish will be equally violent.

Why?

It's like replacing one dictator with another, one barbaric regime with another; only names change, but the situation doesn't.

No, it's replacing entire systems. :rolleyes:

TheCultofAbeLincoln

19th February 2011, 08:58

Violence though it isn't the aim of a proletarian revolution, is the reasonable thing to expect from a process through which conflicting interests are taken to their conclusion...

By attempting a 'non-violence' revolution you will get nowhere, if you do (which you will not) you would willingly be putting people on your side at greater risk of death or injury, for the sake of liberal values. The only revolution in which non-violence could work is a revolution that is purely cosmetic.

In the context of social unrest, violence is productive, the press nor the government tolerate this productive expression of discontent, they prefer 'peaceful protests', it presents no threat and kindly asks the ruling class to "please consider".

Absolutely preposterous. The only thing that could have saved Mubarak during the protests would have been for the protestors to attempt to change the regime through the use of violence.

By picking up a weapon and attacking the state square on you play to the state's stregnth. Only nonviolent resistance plays to the weakness of most states, especially strong ones. The solution is not uniform for all situations of course, but violent action against established militaries shows less and less possibilities for success.

Furthermore, the entire model of a proletarian army liberating people may be applicable still in some areas in the third world, but the Marxist Leninists and whatnot (not accusing you of holding that stinky title of being a ML to be sure) is entirely outdated, obsolete, and more romantic than the OP believing there are social democrats out there wishing to establish a communist society. The only revolution which may bring a true change of society are those in which the people as a whole decide to act, and much of the time this does not need violence far above the levels seen in Egypt.

That is not to say there will not be violence, but to call the events in Egypt, for example, a violent revoltion would be historically inaccurate in my opinion. Evo Morales rallied the indeigenous people of Bolivia to a common cause in a way that some cuban guerrillas had been completely unable to do. It was the people of Venezuela, not some revolutionary vanguard, which kept Chavez in power despite the coup attempt. It was the strikes that broke the back of the shah, not the fighters, just as earlier this same method of nonviolent resistance could be called the true executioner of the Hohenzollern, Romanov, and Hapsburg dynasties.

It is that tactic, that of no longer engaging in the system which oppresses, that is the most damning to the regime. The General Strike is incredibly more powerful than any and every revolutionary vanguard that has ever existed. Perhaps the term should be updated to General Uprising, as the causes seeming to be expounded upon by those revolutionaries range from higher pay to more political freedoms to the release of prisoners to less expensive food to restoration of human dignity.

No, it's replacing entire systems. :rolleyes:

It is replacing one dictator with another who's better at keeping the population under strict control, such was the eventual fate of all the failed 20th century revolutions. That is not to say they were not also successful in building more tanks or rockets, but the freedom of choosing a leader remained as far out of reach, for all practicable purposes, to the common man as when it was passed hereditarily.

Thank God we are past all that "dictatorship of the proletariat" bullshit.

Milk Sheikh

19th February 2011, 09:18

I'm still interested in your answer to my original question.

Non-violent noncooperation. Is that convincing?

Why?

Because, as I said earlier, means and end are the same.

No, it's replacing entire systems. :rolleyes:

I highly doubt that. If people are ready to kill, would it not be logical to assume they're doing it for power and not for ideological reasons?

Bitter Ashes

19th February 2011, 09:41

Nothing democratic about democratic socialism. While the unelected employer or property owner still has absolute authority over your lives it's still a dictatorship.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

19th February 2011, 09:51

RGacky3

19th February 2011, 09:54

I got no problem with social democracy as a system, or I have no problem with social democratic reforms, public taking over of industry, democratising economic activity, the welfare state, strong union support and so on.

Infact I'll fight for this reforms.

But I don't get why you would see social-democracy as the end all? Its like during a monarch being a constitutional monarch, pick a side, either the monarchy is valid or it is not.

I'm a socialist and an Anarchist, but I support anything that goes in that direction, which includes social democracic reforms.

As far as Europena social democratic parties turned Capitalists, then you support the parties that are further left, or just pick your best option based on the dynamics.

You take your small victories and you fight for more, the more you gain the more hungry the working class gets, thats why Capitalists don't want to give up ANYTHING.

Bitter Ashes

19th February 2011, 10:05

Hannah, there may be a very heirarchal system at most employers, and it may even be said that peoples lives depend upon employment. But to say there's no difference between which political system one lives under, and whether one has the right of free speech, organization in a union, social security in case of unemployment, and right to demonstrate that are expected in social democracies as compared to other forms of govt is a misguided position in my humble opinion.

I am not ready to trade the freedoms I have living in a liberal democracy for a greater sense of democracy at the workplace.
All of those things your employer can punish you for and social security is merely us paying for the welfare that employers refuse to provide. Sometimes legaly, sometimes with a little bit of bullshit to cover up thier personal feelings. After all, who's word is going to be believed?

TheCultofAbeLincoln

19th February 2011, 10:13

Gacky, I don't argue your point, that social democracy is not and end all be all. But in line with your last point, we need to consider where we are rigt now. The country is in the throes of a rightist agenda that is doing everything it can to complete the job of destroying the workers right to collective bargaining, cut spending on entitlements that are depended on by millions, and end any government assistance to aid the economy.

We're still recovering from a major recession that exposed the weak underpinnings of a boom built on deregulation and outrageous amounts of private debt. And you know, in government and among the millions of people who elected the current congress and folks like comrade walker, the primary issue is the fucking deficit and removing even more regulation. Now the US does need to change fundamentally in that regard or will face consequences, but while deflation is the major concern in the market it makes absolutely no fucking sense to try and balance the budget at the moment (not that the market should determine public policy mind you, public policy should determine the direction of the market).

Shit you're talking about socialism and anarchism, great goals to be sure, but right now social democratic keynsianism (for things other than defense contractors, oil subsidies, and banks) seems more and more like a marginalized position. Even being on the level of FDR is considered to be radically leftist in this day and age.

Now, obvioulsy, it's not nearly as bleak for the left as the corporate controlled media would have one believe. The difference between a democratic voting teacher and a radical communist one is a moot point in Wisconsin right now.

Bitter Ashes

19th February 2011, 10:18

TheCultofAbeLincoln

19th February 2011, 10:21

All of those things your employer can punish you for and social security is merely us paying for the welfare that employers refuse to provide. Sometimes legaly, sometimes with a little bit of bullshit to cover up thier personal feelings. After all, who's word is going to be believed?

I don't see what you mean by saying employers can punish us for having the rights given us in our respective liberal democracies. Please expound, I don't want to agree with or counter a point you didn't make.

As for us, the taxpayer, paying for welfare I have no disagreement. In fact, something to consider is that with minimum wage laws so low there are millions of employed people at companies like wal mart that are unorganized and depend hugely on govt programs to make ends meet. Something to consider as the right wing image of the free loader seems to justify cuts and austerity. At least, regarding the US situation I am sure it is not too incongruent in the UK.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

19th February 2011, 10:29

It's all or nothing I'm afraid. Calling for a system that is bound to cause further suffering only disillusions people further from all kinds of politics. In the UK we just lost a Labour party goverment which is social democrat. Nobody trusts politicians after that. I don't blame them.

And I don't blame you. I really think we probably agree much more than disagree on these issues. But I do not think that calling for something short of communist revolution is bound to be a disappointment nor fruitless in delivering for workers. Victories, however small, do not tend to sap workers but rather empower them.

The disillusionment with politicians I wholeheartedly understand.

Bitter Ashes

19th February 2011, 10:31

I don't see what you mean by saying employers can punish us for having the rights given us in our respective liberal democracies. Please expound, I don't want to agree with or counter a point you didn't make.

As for us, the taxpayer, paying for welfare I have no disagreement. In fact, something to consider is that with minimum wage laws so low there are millions of employed people at companies like wal mart that are unorganized and depend hugely on govt programs to make ends meet. Something to consider as the right wing image of the free loader seems to justify cuts and austerity. At least, regarding the US situation I am sure it is not too incongruent in the UK.
Even with the best employment laws to prevent employers from sacking, physically attacking, or even just treating thier staff less favourably for organising, employers can and do find ways around the law. Even your activities out of work can land you in trouble with the employer as the Facebook arrests prove.

Your point about workers relying on goverment programs is a valid one, however it proves to me that employers are unwilling to provide decent living standards to thier workers and if forced, then they'll just abandon ship out abroad thanks to globalisation. You're stuck when it comes to this stuff. You let the employers get away with too much and they abuse the system, but if you get too close to a fair society then the employers take thier wealth with them. The result is a permanent state of desperation for most workers with no way out with goverment legislation. The only solution that social democrats can come up with to this problem is to make those already abused workers pay for thier own welfare through taxation.

We've tried it. It doesn't work.

TheCultofAbeLincoln

19th February 2011, 10:44

We tried it, it was built and the promise of a brighter, more egalitarian future existed.

As is the case in both of our countries, the victories of labor were betrayed and dismantled. In the US it is a common mistake to solely blame the right wing politicians such as Mr Reagan, it is also the fault of dozens of incompetent or corrupted (or both) union officials, scores of worker backed politicians, and and incessant campaign by big business to remove reforms and labor victories which had been in place since the great depression showed the need for them.

Today in much of the 'right to work' US employees can be fired for any reason, unions are nonexistent, and benefits from employment are disappearing. All of those things are exactly the opposite from when social democrats had control, and the reemergence of truly social democrat movements should be seen as an encouraging sign both by communists and people of a more mainstream viewpoint.

Thug Lessons

19th February 2011, 11:09

Nothing democratic about democratic socialism. While the unelected employer or property owner still has absolute authority over your lives it's still a dictatorship.

It would probably be useful to distinguish between democratic socialism that entails a capitalist economy with government intervention, (social democracy), from democratic socialism where an actual socialist economic system is instituted by democratic means, (reformism). Not that I support either, but they're different things.

hatzel

19th February 2011, 12:09

RGacky3

19th February 2011, 16:46

Shit you're talking about socialism and anarchism, great goals to be sure, but right now social democratic keynsianism (for things other than defense contractors, oil subsidies, and banks) seems more and more like a marginalized position. Even being on the level of FDR is considered to be radically leftist in this day and age.

Now, obvioulsy, it's not nearly as bleak for the left as the corporate controlled media would have one believe. The difference between a democratic voting teacher and a radical communist one is a moot point in Wisconsin right now.

Absolutely, so heres what you do, join the IWW, picket with the AFL-CIO.

Anarchism is'nt a goal, its a set of principles, its a world view.

I'm a Socialist, I always will be, I don't care if Pinoche is the president, and union leaders are being shot, you don't stop being a socialist and move more to the center.

If you change your principles based on where you are then whats the point of having principles.

What changes is where your fight starts, sometimes you gotta start low, sometimes you gett to start high.

StockholmSyndrome

19th February 2011, 18:19

Since I have been labelled a social democrat by the admins, I guess I should give my two cents worth, though I'm pretty much in agreement with RGacky about staying true to our principles.

Most people do not want to risk their lives, their families, that little ounce of security that they have carved for themselves, and the enormous progress that has been made in the name of democratic reforms and justice over the years, to go to war with the most powerful and technologically advanced elements in society in order to completely replace the current system(which actually is not 100% bad) with something that remains an enigma even after hundreds of years of experimentation. It's like asking a blindfolded person to jump off of a cliff with you while consoling them saying, "Trust me, its only 10 feet high," when in reality you have no idea how tall that cliff is.

Marxists especially recognize the amazing progress that capitalism has achieved, right? I think it is a lot easier to talk about the whole of humanity coming together and consciously transforming the entire economic system than to actually do it. We shouldn't allow ourselves to get too big for our britches. I think falling into any all-encompassing ideology is what is dangerous and lends itself to opportunism. Once again, calling for the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system is out of touch and there is no place for it in real world discourse. We should instead focus on harnessing what is good and weeding out what is bad to create a better world for more people (staying true to our principles). This is not opportunism, it is pragmatism and realism.

Havet

19th February 2011, 18:23

Just curious why do you think the Social Democracy economic system is not a good choice?

Because only I can truly represent myself

Revolution starts with U

20th February 2011, 00:32

Once again, calling for the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system is out of touch and there is no place for it in real world discourse. We should instead focus on harnessing what is good and weeding out what is bad to create a better world for more people (staying true to our principles). This is not opportunism, it is pragmatism and realism.

I was with you up until this little gem. Sure, it's dangerous. Sure, it may not be a good move, or it could be a great move. But saying it "has no place" in any discussion is status quo apologetics that I have no respect for :mad:

#FF0000

20th February 2011, 06:10

#FF0000

20th February 2011, 06:15

Only a society based upon pacifism can survive.

No. Such. Thing.

Amphictyonis

20th February 2011, 07:29

RGacky3

20th February 2011, 10:27

When we say "Revolution", we don't necessarily mean "armed, guerilla style uprising". That won't happen in the West. It can't.

Exactly, revolution is trying to change the structures of society, be it through syndicalism, be it through community action, be it through guerilla, be it through whatever.

khad

20th February 2011, 13:05

Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, and the Egyptian revolution shown us how peacefull revolution can happen.

If violence does happen. I will not pick up a gun. It is not my way.
You're so full of shit. Ever hear of the African Stalingrad? The end of apartheid was won with the blood of patriots.

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2007-07-11-cuito-cuanavale-revisited

bricolage

20th February 2011, 15:00

The ANC weren't non-violent, yet the violence could be pushed aside as they made deals with the CIA and World Bank. If they'd pushed on to actually really take apart apartheid social relations (which still exist to a very large degree) then there is a high chance the situation would have ended up with a lot more conflict.

L.A.P.

20th February 2011, 19:58

I know some here believe were not too tough against the free market. Well I don't believe that the United States is not ready for Socialism or Communist yet. I rather have a fully regulated market than state owned market. The socialist state can be corrupted like an capitalist state. As of now I rather have the middle ground.

Also I oppose a violent revolutions. Socialist revolutions tend to be violent.

http://achievements.schrankmonster.de/Achievement.aspx?text=Reformist%20Achievement

Since I have been labelled a social democrat by the admins, I guess I should give my two cents worth, though I'm pretty much in agreement with RGacky about staying true to our principles.

Most people do not want to risk their lives, their families, that little ounce of security that they have carved for themselves, and the enormous progress that has been made in the name of democratic reforms and justice over the years, to go to war with the most powerful and technologically advanced elements in society in order to completely replace the current system(which actually is not 100% bad) with something that remains an enigma even after hundreds of years of experimentation. It's like asking a blindfolded person to jump off of a cliff with you while consoling them saying, "Trust me, its only 10 feet high," when in reality you have no idea how tall that cliff is.

Marxists especially recognize the amazing progress that capitalism has achieved, right? I think it is a lot easier to talk about the whole of humanity coming together and consciously transforming the entire economic system than to actually do it. We shouldn't allow ourselves to get too big for our britches. I think falling into any all-encompassing ideology is what is dangerous and lends itself to opportunism. Once again, calling for the revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist system is out of touch and there is no place for it in real world discourse. We should instead focus on harnessing what is good and weeding out what is bad to create a better world for more people (staying true to our principles). This is not opportunism, it is pragmatism and realism.

http://achievements.schrankmonster.de/Achievement.aspx?text=Revisionist%20Achievement

Viet Minh

20th February 2011, 20:03

Quick question, probably a stupid one, but yeah.. Is Social Democracy the same as Democratic Socialism?

Property Is Robbery

20th February 2011, 20:04

Because Social Democrats are Capitalists and it states clearly when you sign up that Capitalists get restricted.

Quick question, probably a stupid one, but yeah.. Is Social Democracy the same as Democratic Socialism?
Nope, I would say the main difference is social democrats retain the Capitalist means of production while democratic socialists do not. Democratic Socialists are also not restricted here.

Edit: Turns out Democratic Socialists are restricted here.

L.A.P.

20th February 2011, 20:14

Quick question, probably a stupid one, but yeah.. Is Social Democracy the same as Democratic Socialism?

They have so many similarities to the point where they're used interchangeably but they aren't exactly the same. Democratic socialism wants to create a socialist state by going through bourgeoisie elections like voting for a socialist party and passing nationalization bills rather than going through revolution and overthrowing the capitalist state. What Hugo Chavez is doing is a pretty good example of democratic socialism put into practice but he's a bit more radical, and the Old Labour government of the United Kingdom is an example too. I don't mind democratic socialism and mainly view it as a plan B. Social democracy wants to reform capitalism into having more social justice and making it work better for the working class while keeping a capitalist mode of production. The economic system that would come of social democracy resembles that of corporatism which is the economic basis of fascism causing social democracy to be labeled by many Communists as "social fascism". The theorists who created social democracy were Marxists that rejected some of Marx's ideas and wanted reform over revolution which is also where the idea of revisionism comes from.

Sentinel

20th February 2011, 20:50

did a trotskyist just claim that social democracy as a theory was dead?It is dead, replaced by so called 'third way social democracy', which is a capitalist ideology and has nothing to do with the idea of reaching a socialist society through reforms -- which in turn was a diversion from the original, revolutionary message but still claimed to aim for socialism.

because i can look at a host of social democratic countries with incredibly high living standards. i cant point to a trotskyist government. ever.No worries, soon you can. The United Left Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Left_Alliance), which includes Trotskyist parties, is about to march into parliament in the Irish elections this month. They may not be able to form a government yet, but have good enough chance of constituting the foundation of a new revolutionary socialist mass party in the near future. :)

Goatpie

20th February 2011, 21:07

I only hate democratic socialists when the are on the capitalist side.
They try to destroy the evils of capitalism and while doing so slow down the progress of socialism.
And when they fuck up like they usually do it makes the left look bad

Sir Comradical

20th February 2011, 21:14

Wanted Man

20th February 2011, 22:09

My beef with social-democracy is, in the main, their practice throughout their history, which is easy to look up.

Bud Struggle

20th February 2011, 22:33

My beef with social-democracy is, in the main, their practice throughout their history, which is easy to look up.

And what go you see when you look up Communism's practice throught history?

It's easy to look up, too.

#FF0000

20th February 2011, 23:22

And what go you see when you look up Communism's practice throught history?

You see quite a lot of things because the USSR isn't the end all be all of Communism.

B5C

20th February 2011, 23:26

You see quite a lot of things because the USSR isn't the end all be all of Communism.

No, but we got the People's Republic of China and Khmer Rouge Cambodia.

#FF0000

20th February 2011, 23:27

No, but we got the People's Republic of China and Khmer Rouge Cambodia.

The Khmer Rouge. The guys who said "yeah that Marxism shit was too complicated so we were winging it".

Okay.

#FF0000

20th February 2011, 23:29

tbh we should focus more on the theory than history because I just don't have the time to explain why simply pointing at the USSR and China and saying SEE ITS BAD is a dumb thing to do.

Dimentio

20th February 2011, 23:30

I've noticed that Social Democrats are restricted here. :(

Just curious why do you think the Social Democracy economic system is not a good choice? Is it just because you all just hate roses? ;)

Socialism means that the workers should control the means of production.

Social Democracy means that the state own some companies and give social benefits to the people through high taxation of the people.

The social democrats gradually became social liberals. Nowadays, they are just social liberals with the colour red.

The kind of "Socialism" practised in the Eastern Bloc had also very little to do with actual Socialism.

L.A.P.

21st February 2011, 02:12

.
No worries, soon you can. The United Left Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Left_Alliance), which includes Trotskyist parties, is about to march into parliament in the Irish elections this month. They may not be able to form a government yet, but have good enough chance of constituting the foundation of a new revolutionary socialist mass party in the near future. :)

Those "revolutionary" Trotskyist parties are also Democratic Socialists, and that's not saying a Trotskyist party can't be revolutionary but these specific Trotskyist parties aren't interested in revolution.

StockholmSyndrome

21st February 2011, 04:14

Man, I just don't know how I can make you understand. I'm totally on board here, until you say "BUT NO REVOLUTION HRMF".

When we say "Revolution", we don't necessarily mean "armed, guerilla style uprising". That won't happen in the West. It can't.

Yeah we've been through that before. The point is that whether we're talking about an armed guerilla uprising or otherwise, replacing the current economic and social system with something completely different in a short period of time is just fucking insane. My position is that radically focused democratic reforms at the global level can lead to a gradual revolution (evolution). This doesn't mean we can vote our way to freedom, and it doesn't mean that business as usual with just an extra touch of socialism is all we need. It means that, of course, there will be struggle, there will have to be a mass movement which pressures and directly challenges the existing power structure in order to democratize the world. And of course the rich and powerful will do everything they can to counter this movement towards democracy and globalism.

Will there/can there be a revolution?, as in a complete transformation in a relatively short period of time? Not feasible.

http://achievements.schrankmonster.de/Achievement.aspx?text=Reformist%20Achievement

http://achievements.schrankmonster.de/Achievement.aspx?text=Revisionist%20Achievement

Also, the revolutionary left is too obsessed with isms.

Socialism means that the workers should control the means of production.

Social Democracy means that the state own some companies and give social benefits to the people through high taxation of the people.

The social democrats gradually became social liberals. Nowadays, they are just social liberals with the colour red.

The kind of "Socialism" practised in the Eastern Bloc had also very little to do with actual Socialism.

And other generalized categories in which to lump their opponents.

P.S. I think George Monbiot is a great read.

#FF0000

21st February 2011, 04:33

Will there/can there be a revolution?, as in a complete transformation in a relatively short period of time? Not feasible.

I guess that's why literally nobody on this site expects this.

#FF0000

21st February 2011, 04:36

I'm going to bow out of this until Stockholm and OP figure out what exactly it is that we stand for/why they disagree with us

Witan

21st February 2011, 04:55

It's because Social Democrats do not aim to abolish the Capitalist mode of production. They are not revolutionary socialists.

^What he said. It's the same thing with countries like Sweden that are called "socialist". They really aren't, since they haven't abolished capitalism.

RGacky3

21st February 2011, 07:54

Yeah we've been through that before. The point is that whether we're talking about an armed guerilla uprising or otherwise, replacing the current economic and social system with something completely different in a short period of time is just fucking insane. My position is that radically focused democratic reforms at the global level can lead to a gradual revolution (evolution). This doesn't mean we can vote our way to freedom, and it doesn't mean that business as usual with just an extra touch of socialism is all we need. It means that, of course, there will be struggle, there will have to be a mass movement which pressures and directly challenges the existing power structure in order to democratize the world. And of course the rich and powerful will do everything they can to counter this movement towards democracy and globalism.

Will there/can there be a revolution?, as in a complete transformation in a relatively short period of time? Not feasible.

First READ the arguments, as was said, no one expects this, but that does'nt mean you change your ideal or your principles.

LR7dNntU5oI

StockholmSyndrome

21st February 2011, 15:16

Quote from the video clip around 1:15 fixed: "They were never Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus/etc. They never had a concept of true faith, the faith that no matter what science tells us, you will carry on the belief that life is everlasting." :)

I'm going to bow out of this until Stockholm and OP figure out what exactly it is that we stand for/why they disagree with us

I know what you stand for and why you oppose social democracy. I've read all sorts of Marxist analyses of capitalism and why nothing short of a complete overhaul of the economic system is the only solution to the world's problems. I understand your argument that social democrats cede power and only further entrench the capitalist mode of production in the long run. I've read about how social democracy and Keynesianism were only temporary fixes aimed at propping up a stagnant economy. I understand that you believe justice can only be realized in a classless, stateless, marketless, moneyless society.

The reason I disagree with you is because, like the classical economists whom Marx destroyed, you are also caught inside a self reinforcing ideological bubble which does not capture the nuances of the world we actually live in.

#FF0000

21st February 2011, 16:33

The reason I disagree with you is because, like the classical economists whom Marx destroyed, you are also caught inside a self reinforcing ideological bubble which does not capture the nuances of the world we actually live in. Oh neat. What's that based on? Because to be honest it sounds like you're just saying a thing. Sort of like people who call other people "dogmatic" for defending an opinion.

resurgence

21st February 2011, 16:42

Oh wow a Pacifist Saddamist! What a turn up for the books!

resurgence

21st February 2011, 16:56

And what go you see when you look up Communism's practice throught history?

It's easy to look up, too.

The International Communist movement has indeed been brutual at times but faced with the enemies and pressures it has had to endure that should be understandable. Social Democracy though from the start of its break with the revolutionary movement at the beinging of World War I is dripping in the blood of proletarians (think only of the murder and rape of Rosa Luxembourg) and peoples subjected to colonialism.

I would highly recommend Social Democracy; The enemy within by Harpar Bral.

StockholmSyndrome

21st February 2011, 17:07

Oh neat. What's that based on? Because to be honest it sounds like you're just saying a thing. Sort of like people who call other people "dogmatic" for defending an opinion.

It's based on the works of many historians, economists and social scientists, certain unavoidable facts and observations made by me and others, all of which make up my opinion.

"If you are defending an opinion, then you are dogmatic" is not the same as,
"If you are defending an opinion despite evidence to the contrary, then you are dogmatic".

#FF0000

21st February 2011, 17:08

resurgence

21st February 2011, 17:13

It's based on the works of many historians, economists and social scientists, certain unavoidable facts and observations made by me and others, all of which make up my opinion.

.

Are you a university student? The reason I ask that question is because in the observations of I and others they often have a incredibly distorted view of the world outside the "dreaming towers" of acedemia. These historians, economists and social scientists Im sure also have cosy paid jobs within the capitalist superstructure and those who pay the piper generally call the tune.

Milk Sheikh

21st February 2011, 17:20

No. Such. Thing.

Imagine a society where there is no conflict, only dialogue and compromise. Surely that's better than violence?

StockholmSyndrome

21st February 2011, 17:21

Maybe your evidence isn't as compelling as you think or you don't know as much as you think you do.

That last part trips up a lot of people. A LOT of people.

EDIT: Oh, also, by that definition, everyone who ever holds an opinion is dogmatic. So.

"If my evidence is not as compelling as I think or I don't know as much as I think I do, then your evidence is as compelling as you think and you know as much as you think you do...." :huh:

How about this one:

People should be compelled to completely do away with capitalism if and only if it can be proven to be completely bad/destructive/evil/wrong/not useful/etc.

StockholmSyndrome

21st February 2011, 17:23

Are you a university student?

I graduated from a university, yes. Anti-intellectualism much?

#FF0000

21st February 2011, 17:25

Imagine a society where there is no conflict, only dialogue and compromise. Surely that's better than violence?

Of course. It would also rule if my house was made of ice-cream and cotton candy that regenerated every night like Sisyphus' Prometheus' liver.

People should be compelled to completely do away with capitalism if and only if it can be proven to be completely bad/destructive/evil/wrong/not useful/etc.

I guess so. I don't see anything wrong with this statement unless you're going to flip this around into some "SO CAPITALISM CAN'T BE ALL THAT BAD IF IT'S STILL AROUND, THEN" kind of thing.

I graduated from a university, yes. Anti-intellectualism much? I dont' think it was anti-intellectualism as much as it was "anti-blatant appeal to authority"

RGacky3

21st February 2011, 17:28

Stockholm syndrome, in practice, what would you actually do differently from what socialists do?

resurgence

21st February 2011, 17:33

I graduated from a university, yes. Anti-intellectualism much?

So to believe to make the rather safe presumption that the experts and acedemics of the ruling system (which under late capitalism is not confined to the market and work place, but oozes out to reshape the entire society according to its suicidal logic) have an interest in its defense and also see the world from its point of view now counts as "anti-intellectualism"? Yeah right...:rolleyes:

resurgence

21st February 2011, 17:34

Imagine a society where there is no conflict, only dialogue and compromise. Surely that's better than violence?

Of course that would be better than violence. However such a society is not possible at this stage of human development.

StockholmSyndrome

21st February 2011, 21:46

I guess so. I don't see anything wrong with this statement unless you're going to flip this around into some "SO CAPITALISM CAN'T BE ALL THAT BAD IF IT'S STILL AROUND, THEN" kind of thing.

No. The next logical connective would be: Since capitalism CANNOT be proven to be completely bad, then there must be alternatives to doing away with it completely.

So to believe to make the rather safe presumption that the experts and acedemics of the ruling system (which under late capitalism is not confined to the market and work place, but oozes out to reshape the entire society according to its suicidal logic) have an interest in its defense and also see the world from its point of view now counts as "anti-intellectualism"? Yeah right...:rolleyes:

Yeah, pretty much.

StockholmSyndrome

21st February 2011, 21:47

Stockholm syndrome, in practice, what would you actually do differently from what socialists do?

Depends on who we're talking about when we say "socialists".

Revolution starts with U

21st February 2011, 21:54

You do know libertarian capitalists still consider you a socialist and destroyer of capitalism, right?

#FF0000

21st February 2011, 21:56

No. The next logical connective would be: Since capitalism CANNOT be proven to be completely bad, then there must be alternatives to doing away with it completely.

Except nothing can be shown to be completely bad because "bad" is 100% subjective. Feudalism certainly wasn't 100% bad for the clergy and the nobles.

resurgence

21st February 2011, 21:57

Is there any system that is completely as in 100 per cent bad as such?

I mean look at the amazing Cathedrals that feudalism produced.

Revolution starts with U

21st February 2011, 22:02

Look at the glory of Rome. I'm sure, even with all its good, you wouldn't want to return to that system, eh Stockholm?

StockholmSyndrome

21st February 2011, 22:36

You do know libertarian capitalists still consider you a socialist and destroyer of capitalism, right?

Yeah, so? Reasonable people like me (the majority) are surrounded by wackos on both sides. What's new?

I knew I was going to catch a lot of strawmen for that careless statement about capitalism not being all bad. The point is that, given a cost, benefit analysis, it is simply not worth it to take a giant leap of faith. Anyways, in the case of Rome, we haven't completely done away with that system, have we?

Revolution starts with U

21st February 2011, 22:42

Nobody cares that you don't think capitalism is all bad. I don't think it's all bad either. I also don't think its redeeming qualities suggest that there is no place for revolutionary change.

#FF0000

21st February 2011, 22:47

The point is that, given a cost, benefit analysis, it is simply not worth it to take a giant leap of faith.

There is so much wrong with your reasoning that I really don't know where to start.

First off, you're sort of saying "well this idea is unpopular at the time so it should be abandoned".

Second, you're acting like we don't realize Marxism or Socialism aren't popular now.

Third, you're acting like we believe that one day people will say "we need to get rid of capitalism" when things are relatively good (people aren't being foreclosed on, have food and disposable income and a job).

Fourth, you're giving me another totally subjective perspective with this "cost-benefit analysis" nonsense. Most of the world is capitalist and most of the world is poor. For the bulk of the people living on the planet right now, it can be argued that the destruction of capitalism is imperative.

StockholmSyndrome

21st February 2011, 23:00

First off, you're sort of saying "well this idea is unpopular at the time so it should be abandoned".

That is not what I'm saying

Third, you're acting like we believe that one day people will say "we need to get rid of capitalism" when things are relatively good (people aren't being foreclosed on, have food and disposable income and a job).

I was waiting for someone to say something like this. Do I really need to explain why this statement reeks?

Fourth, you're giving me another totally subjective perspective with this "cost-benefit analysis" nonsense. Most of the world is capitalist and most of the world is poor. For the bulk of the people living on the planet right now, it can be argued that the destruction of capitalism is imperative.

"Worker's of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!" was written by a privileged white male who actually had a lot less to lose than they did.

#FF0000

21st February 2011, 23:36

I was waiting for someone to say something like this. Do I really need to explain why this statement reeks?No. Capitalism gives a fraction of 1% of all of the human beings on Earth a pretty okay life. Everyone else suffers to varying degrees, but hey.

Also, even when life is fucking awful, people get by. Being immersed in the worst poverty imaginable doesn't necessarily make one prone to be a "revolutionary", just like relative "privilege" doesn't make it impossible for a revolution to take place.

"Worker's of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!" was written by a privileged white male who actually had a lot less to lose than they did. Someone has privilege.

Someone else has no privilege

Person w/o privilege dismantles system of privilege

Privileged person loses less.

?????

Revolution starts with U

21st February 2011, 23:43

Stockholme, picture yourself in a feudal environment with the same arguments. They could be made for it; the peasants have too much to lose, there are redeeming qualities to fuedal life, there's no place in society for revolutionary change.
Do they sound ridiculous in that context?

resurgence

21st February 2011, 23:54

Yeah, so? Reasonable people like me (the majority) are surrounded by wackos on both sides. What's new?

What is your "reasonableness" based on, reason or conformity?

Experience teaches us that people who stress their reasonableness do so often because of their adjustment to the conditions that they find themselves in which may not be that rational if examined with proper reason. Or maybe your attachment to Social Democracy has grown out of the fact that you have found yourself a cosy little niche within the system but still want to feel all warm and fuzzy about yourself, "cos basically you are a good guy?"

StockholmSyndrome

22nd February 2011, 00:00

Someone has privilege.

Someone else has no privilege

Person w/o privilege dismantles system of privilege

Privileged person loses less.

?????

More like:

Someone has privilege
Someone else has no privilege
Person w/o privilege gets arrested/maimed/killed/fired/marginalized trying to dismantle system of privilege and replace it with another system of privilege.
Privileged person gets bailed out/pardoned/has a comfortable safety net to fall back on when things get thick.

Stockholme, picture yourself in a feudal environment with the same arguments. They could be made for it; the peasants have too much to lose, there are redeeming qualities to fuedal life, there's no place in society for revolutionary change.
Do they sound ridiculous in that context?

The transition from feudalism to capitalism was not a "revolution" of the magnitude that we are talking about. This example is of course a strawman.

StockholmSyndrome

22nd February 2011, 00:01

What is your "reasonableness" based on, reason or conformity?

Experience teaches us that people who stress their reasonableness do so often because of their adjustment to the conditions that they find themselves in which may not be that rational if examined with proper reason. Or maybe your attachment to Social Democracy has grown out of the fact that you have found yourself a cosy little niche within the system but still want to feel all warm and fuzzy about yourself, "cos basically you are a good guy?"

Now come the personal attacks.

#FF0000

22nd February 2011, 00:08

Now come the personal attacks.

It wasn't a personal attack. You made a dumb appeal to "sanity" or "centrism" or whatever and you got called on it. It is dumb to say "i am in the middle and y'all are extreme". It dismisses arguments coming from certain perspectives for no reason.

Not to mention you attacked Karl Marx not three posts ago, criticizing him for his "workers of the world" quote from a position of relative privilege.

More like:

Someone has privilege
Someone else has no privilege
Person w/o privilege gets arrested/maimed/killed/fired/marginalized trying to dismantle system of privilege and replace it with another system of privilege.
Privileged person gets bailed out/pardoned/has a comfortable safety net to fall back on when things get thick.

Marx got thrown out of almost every single country he was ever in and was spied on by the German government all the time. It just so happened they didn't really give a fuck when they saw ol' Karlito living in a filthy apartment that was so disgusting that the spy sent back reports that were about nothing but how shitty his apartment was.

And there are plenty of communist theorists who paid heavy prices for their beliefs.

EDIT: I'm also trying to figure out how a classless, stateless society is "another system of privilege".

The transition from feudalism to capitalism was not a "revolution" of the magnitude that we are talking about. This example is of course a strawman.Maybe not of the magnitude you are talking about. It was certainly a revolution, though.

What is your idea of "revolution", anyway?

resurgence

22nd February 2011, 00:12

Not personal attacks as such, people's change in political views or adoption of them often coincides with changes in the place in the structure of society. Often but not always. Trying to rationalize and defend intellectually our position in the world isnt exactly rare you know.

Anyway Lenin pointed that "social democracy"/reformism must be seen within the context of the super exploitation of the so-called "Third world".

#FF0000

22nd February 2011, 00:57

Anyway Lenin pointed that "social democracy"/reformism must be seen within the context of the super exploitation of the so-called "Third world".

I thought I was the smartest motherfucker on the planet when I thought of this.

Sir Comradical

22nd February 2011, 01:19

The Grey Blur

22nd February 2011, 01:24

"Worker's of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!" was written by a privileged white male who actually had a lot less to lose than they did.

marx was in poverty for most of his later years and even saw one of his children die from an easily preventable disease. he was pawning all sorts of stuff just to be able to feed his family and pay the rent.

The Grey Blur

22nd February 2011, 01:35

social-democracy is a great idea and in the context of the post-war global economic boom capitalism was able to afford it (where workers were organised enough to push for it). capitalism is now broke, it's actively attacking even those basic rights (collective bargaining for example in wisconsin) which workers' organisations have managed to retain over the past 30 or so years of neo-liberal onslaught on the right to organise, work conditions, pay, etc

i've no problem with pushing for reforms which ape the classic social-democratic models, they play an invaluable role in pointing out just how fucked capitalism is in that it can't even provide for these basic demands, but essentially you're trying to roll back the last 30 or 40 years in terms of capitalism's current economic and political flexibility (or lack therof). add in the environmental arguments and it's obvious it needs replacing, not tinkering.

StockholmSyndrome

22nd February 2011, 02:48

It wasn't a personal attack. You made a dumb appeal to "sanity" or "centrism" or whatever and you got called on it. It is dumb to say "i am in the middle and y'all are extreme". It dismisses arguments coming from certain perspectives for no reason.

Let's just ignore that I was responding to Revolution Starts With U who made a dumb appeal to the way right-wingers perceive social democrats. I made a flippant response to a flippant remark, and Resurgence went about trying to psychoanalyze me because he's so smart and can take an objective step back and really assess the situation. LOL.

Maybe not of the magnitude you are talking about. It was certainly a revolution, though.

What is your idea of "revolution", anyway?

We are talking about a socialist revolution, correct? This means common ownership of the means of production. Democratic planning of the economy at the local level and the global level. Production for need and not commodity exchange. Abolishing the market, private property, wage labor and accumulation. Abolishing parliamentary bodies. As close as we can possibly get to a global direct democracy. Some sort of federation of workers councils building up to some sort of world executive council of recallable delegates holds all political power. Are we on the same page?

TheCultofAbeLincoln

22nd February 2011, 04:36

I do not think the term revolution is being used in the way it's conjured up normally. A revolution is, in my opinion, a quick succession of events which radically alters and replaces. The microwave was revolutionary in the sense of what it did to eating habits among many people, as were things like digital media and the internet and jet aircraft. A political revolution resembles contemporary Egypt and I hope that revolution fares better than many others. A nonviolent revolution was inspiring. But anyways, I have to say that on a large worldwide scale hoping for, and in a world of so many billions all any individual really can do is hope, an immediate change like the classical marxist view is inherently utopian. Thought there will need to be massive changes made over the next century, perhaps the most important in the history of our species. Perhaps a more appropriate way of saying that is that there are going to be massive changes.

Revolution starts with U

22nd February 2011, 06:54

Let's just ignore that I was responding to Revolution Starts With U who made a dumb appeal to the way right-wingers perceive social democrats. I made a flippant response to a flippant remark, and Resurgence went about trying to psychoanalyze me because he's so smart and can take an objective step back and really assess the situation. LOL.

It still was not a personal attack. He asked you if your moderate position was moderate due to reason, or groupthink. But what was a personal attack was when you called me a "whacko" (which you spelled wrong) for telling you that the other side will not in any way respect your moderation.
So let's just ignore that, my friend.

We are talking about a socialist revolution, correct? This means common ownership of the means of production. Democratic planning of the economy at the local level and the global level. Production for need and not commodity exchange. Abolishing the market, private property, wage labor and accumulation. Abolishing parliamentary bodies. As close as we can possibly get to a global direct democracy. Some sort of federation of workers councils building up to some sort of world executive council of recallable delegates holds all political power. Are we on the same page?

No, what you are describing here is socialism. I don't see where the revolution is in there. Though "we" do not rule out the possiblity of sudden violent change, revolution does not imply either of those. The scientific revolution played out over centuries. The industrial over a century or two.
By revolution we mean radical change to the current structure, whether sudden, drawn out, violent, or peaceful.

RGacky3

22nd February 2011, 07:36

Depends on who we're talking about when we say "socialists".

People that call themselves socialists rather than social democrats ...

The reason I ask is because it seams like you actualy believe in the principles of socialism, but would rather just call your self a social-democrat because ... I don't know you want to be more centrist.

But what I want to know is what does that actually change in action?

StockholmSyndrome

22nd February 2011, 13:05

By revolution we mean radical change to the current structure, whether sudden, drawn out, violent, or peaceful.

Then you would count reformists who want a gradual piecemeal transition to socialism in your ranks? You all are being extremely vague and flip-floppy on what you mean by revolution because, I believe, you really don't know what you want.

StockholmSyndrome

22nd February 2011, 13:12

People that call themselves socialists rather than social democrats ...

The reason I ask is because it seams like you actualy believe in the principles of socialism, but would rather just call your self a social-democrat because ... I don't know you want to be more centrist.

But what I want to know is what does that actually change in action?

More focus on improving the system we currently have and working with whats there. Things like campaign finance reform, greater public control over corporations, implementation of estate taxes, otherwise reforming the tax code to decrease the burden on working and middle class people, working on getting candidates elected in congress and parliaments elsewhere, strengthening the ability of unions to counterbalance the power of bosses through legislative reforms, advocating for reform to democratize the IMF and World Bank, creating a debt clearinghouse to prevent the accumulation of debt among developing nations. Basically just being content with taking things step by step and knowing that we may never figure everything out because, well, we aren't perfect.

PS. Wacko has multiple spellings.

RGacky3

22nd February 2011, 13:26

More focus on improving the system we currently have and working with whats there. Things like campaign finance reform, greater public control over corporations, implementation of estate taxes, otherwise reforming the tax code to decrease the burden on working and middle class people, working on getting candidates elected in congress and parliaments elsewhere, strengthening the ability of unions to counterbalance the power of bosses through legislative reforms, advocating for reform to democratize the IMF and World Bank, creating a debt clearinghouse to prevent the accumulation of debt among developing nations. Basically just being content with taking things step by step and knowing that we may never figure everything out because, well, we aren't perfect.

Those are all things revolutionary leftists support. But they understand that the only way thosethings get done is by fighting against the system, because those things ARE the system.

RGacky3

22nd February 2011, 13:27

Then you would count reformists who want a gradual piecemeal transition to socialism in your ranks? You all are being extremely vague and flip-floppy on what you mean by revolution because, I believe, you really don't know what you want.

I want socialism as fast as possible, if gradually is as fast as possible then thats what I want.

But if by social democrat, you mean don't support a general strike and rather just do things slowly, then no.

I don't even get what your problem is. I have nothing against social-democracy, but calling yourself a social-democrat, meaning thats you ideal, is kind of silly.

Revolution starts with U

22nd February 2011, 15:59

I count anyone who honestly wants to better the situation of the people at large, in my ranks. Like Gack said, if gradual change is all we can get, then gradual change is what we take. But saying there is absolutely NO need for sudden, or even violent change is status quo apologetics.
Even Marx, and Im not really a marxist, said if a marxism has no place for reformism, then he is no marxist.

resurgence

22nd February 2011, 16:07

The point missed out as well is that if the working class do not capture control of the state than reforms can easily be taken away. Whatever happened to the eight hour day in the US for instance?

B5C

22nd February 2011, 17:22

The point missed out as well is that if the working class do not capture control of the state than reforms can easily be taken away. Whatever happened to the eight hour day in the US for instance?

I actually don't mind working 8-10 hours as long it's a job I love to do. As long I get my required breaks and lunches required by law I don't mind.

I do mind is having 2 days off.

ed miliband

22nd February 2011, 17:26

I actually don't mind working 8-10 hours as long it's a job I love to do. As long I get my required breaks and lunches required by law I don't mind.

A few weeks of a nine hour job and you probably will mind. If not you might not be human.

resurgence

22nd February 2011, 17:26

I actually don't mind working 8-10 hours as long it's a job I love to do. As long I get my required breaks and lunches required by law I don't mind.

I do mind is having 2 days off.

Way to miss the essence of the post.

The point I was making is that "rights" under capitalism are very fragile things and can be taken away on a whim, a whim of course masked by considerations of the "public good". Without state power in the hands of the working class all "rights" are effectively illusions.

Mao said that without a people's army the people have nothing. And essentially he is correct.

resurgence

22nd February 2011, 17:30

A few weeks of a nine hour job and you probably will mind. If not you might not be human.

It depends on the job and person, but we shouldnt be talking about expections...No one unless it is very necessary should be forced to work crap work for 12 hours a day.

Proukunin

22nd February 2011, 17:33

reformism, and capitalism with a 'human face' is my beef..

hatzel

22nd February 2011, 17:37

I just hate it when people show up 7(!!!) pages into a discussion to give a vague one-line response to thread title :)

B5C

22nd February 2011, 17:39

Way to miss the essence of the post.

The point I was making is that "rights" under capitalism are very fragile things and can be taken away on a whim, a whim of course masked by considerations of the "public good". Without state power in the hands of the working class all "rights" are effectively illusions.

Mao said that without a people's army the people have nothing. And essentially he is correct.

I live in Washington State, it's very pro-worker on rights. The Department of Labor and Industries are very strict when protecting worker rights. When the tesoro oil refinery blew up last year. L&I penalized the company for 3 Million dollars for the deaths of 7 workers. 3 Million is just change for an oil company but it's big enough to appeal it. Now Tesoro is appealing it because they said it's the workers fault for getting blown up.

I have heard L&I suing retailers for not giving their 15 mins breaks on time.

Proukunin

22nd February 2011, 17:39

I just hate it when people show up 7(!!!) pages into a discussion to give a vague one-line response to thread title :)

fuck u then, did it hurt???

resurgence

22nd February 2011, 17:49

I live in Washington State, it's very pro-worker on rights. The Department of Labor and Industries are very strict when protecting worker rights. When the tesoro oil refinery blew up last year. L&I penalized the company for 3 Million dollars for the deaths of 7 workers. 3 Million is just change for an oil company but it's big enough to appeal it. Now Tesoro is appealing it because they said it's the workers fault for getting blown up.

I have heard L&I suing retailers for not giving their 15 mins breaks on time.

So? What does that all have to do with the points that I raised? Absolutely nothing!

Im sure if I could be bothered I could list lots of nice capitalist laws and "rights". I could also probably give loads of examples of how gains that were made in the past have been taken away.

resurgence

22nd February 2011, 17:51

I live in Washington State, it's very pro-worker on rights.

This is another point. Social Democracy by its very nature tends to be nationalist in not a very progressive sense at all because Social Democrats approach the interests of the working class in ONE country as opposed to viewing things from the global persecptive of the entire class.

B5C

22nd February 2011, 17:55

So? What does that all have to do with the points that I raised? Absolutely nothing!

Im sure if I could be bothered I could list lots of nice capitalist laws and "rights". I could also probably give loads of examples of how gains that were made in the past have been taken away.

Yes, some rights can be taken away. This is why we have the protests like in Wisconsin. Hell last fall there was a ballot supported by insurance company to privatize the state's LI insurance program. Guess what? It was voted down by the people, because the people know that you can not trust private companies to provide great health insurance for L&I cases.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Workers'_Comp_Insurance_Reform,_Initiat ive_1082_(2010)

If you have a worker supportive state and a populace who votes for workers rights. We will never see an issue.

B5C

22nd February 2011, 17:59

This is another point. Social Democracy by its very nature tends to be nationalist in not a very progressive sense at all because Social Democrats approach the interests of the working class in ONE country as opposed to viewing things from the global persecptive of the entire class.

That is a misconception. Most Social Democrats support our workers brother and sister all over the globe.

Heck Egyptian labor groups are supporting the Wisconsin labor unions in their protests.
http://madmikesamerica.com/2011/02/mma-commentary-egyptian-protesters-support-wisconsin-protesters/

Sinred

22nd February 2011, 18:16

resurgence

22nd February 2011, 18:17

Heck Egyptian labor groups are supporting the Wisconsin labor unions in their protests.

Look at the history of the British Labour Party in regards to the UK's colonies. Yes there are progressive internationalist types within Social Democracy. Im not denying for a moment but what I am talking about is Social Democracy over all as a mass thing.

B5C

22nd February 2011, 19:47

I dont belive you (B5S) is a socialliberal. I bet you have good socialist intentions. But mark my word, never trust a SD party just because individual members are awesome.

Dont mean to be provocative or anything but thats just facts.

Unfortunately the parties are just pure crap. A belief in Social Democracy is more of an individual responsibility and yet we have to organize. 3rd party system can not work in the United States.

RGacky3

22nd February 2011, 20:55

Im from Sweden, the country in the western world where social democracy has been in power the longest. SD are not revolutionary and (judging from the politics over here) not near socialists.
They have control over the unions, trade with right-wingers, outmanouvred the revleft and are totally anticommunist and antirevolutionary.
Social Democracy has here been the ultimate backstab for the working class in sweden and have traditionally have the same function as the rest of their "comrades" in the world: yelling "calm down!" when real change is about to happen.

I could go on and on about SD and how they typically work but i feel it would take to much time. They also have the (so called) Socialist International with such prominent members as PRI in mexico, the Israeli Labour party and Mubaracks old party just to mention a few. SD are way closer to liberals (and nearly undistinguished to socialliberals).
Dennis Kucinich & Ralph Nader in US are more radical than most SD.

However, im not saying that every social democrat or those voting for them are backstabbing, careeristic, right-wing opportunistic, liberal, class traitors. But the partys representing them are very much so.

I dont belive you (B5S) is a socialliberal. I bet you have good socialist intentions. But mark my word, never trust a SD party just because individual members are awesome.

Dont mean to be provocative or anything but thats just facts.

The sweedish model when they liberalized (a plan totally supported by the "social democrats") absolutely desrtroyed Sweeden.

The same goes for the british labor party, they wen't along with the dismanteling of the social democracy.

In my opinion the sweedish model was heavily flawed to begin with (most of the industry is priavate), without a strong public sector your basically relying on taxes for the welfare state which is unsustainable. THe one good thing they do is the strong unions though.

But sweeden is going down the toilet.

I actually don't mind working 8-10 hours as long it's a job I love to do. As long I get my required breaks and lunches required by law I don't mind.

I do mind is having 2 days off.

You don't mind??? You don't HAVE Too, thats like saying I don't mind being a slave as long as I get treated nice.

In a 0% growth socialist economy with democraticly decided production, we could probably get away with working 4 hour days and 3 day weeks. Honestly.

Toppler

22nd February 2011, 21:40

In a 0% growth socialist economy with democraticly decided production, we could probably get away with working 4 hour days and 3 day weeks. Honestly.

You are for zero growth? When most economies are hopelessly inadequate to meet the ends of their citizens? Redistribution does not solve anything if there is almost nothing to redistribute. A country must have a decent GDP per capita in order to redistribute it equally and justly.

Bud Struggle

22nd February 2011, 22:12

In a 0% growth socialist economy with democraticly decided production, we could probably get away with working 4 hour days and 3 day weeks. Honestly.

FYI Gack: There are some people who aren't lazy and enjoy work.

B5C

22nd February 2011, 22:16

You don't mind??? You don't HAVE Too, thats like saying I don't mind being a slave as long as I get treated nice.

I'm I a slave? No
Do I get treated fairly? Yes

If they start treating me like crap. I can leave I am not stuck. Also note if they want to keep me. They better start treating me fairly. I was one of only TWO people kept on from being seasonal. When I found out I had a late closing shift on Saturday and I had to come in at 4 AM on Sundays. I went too my boss and quckily got that fixed. They didn't say "Deal with it." They knew it is wrong for an employee to get less then 4-5 hours of sleep.

If they are willing to work with me and treat me fairly. I would be proud and sacrifice a little to keep my job and keep the company stable. This is also why i fully support Co-ops. Washington State has a large number of co-ops than any area of the United States.

I had to work in a crappy company that treated me like a slave. It was called Rent-A-Center. If you want a perfect example how brutal Capitalism works. You should work for Rent-A-Center.

StockholmSyndrome

22nd February 2011, 22:37

I want socialism as fast as possible, if gradually is as fast as possible then thats what I want.

But if by social democrat, you mean don't support a general strike and rather just do things slowly, then no.

I don't even get what your problem is. I have nothing against social-democracy, but calling yourself a social-democrat, meaning thats you ideal, is kind of silly.

Well actually, I never called myself a social-democrat. The admins on this board who restricted me did. And I think a general strike can be useful for achieving certain ends. If you are talking about a general strike as a tactic for an immediate revolution then I would oppose it. I know the SPD opposed the general strike in the early 1900s, but there is no reason to believe that opposing the general strike is an absolute policy of all social-democrats.

I guess my point is, while you say "I want socialism as fast as possible, that could mean suddenly or it could mean slowly," I am saying, "If you try to get it suddenly, you will most definitely fail. And there's not guarantee that we can ever actually fully achieve it, even slowly, because its a pretty crazy idea."

Apologies for the late reply. I work an 8 hour job and I live in the United States.

L.A.P.

23rd February 2011, 00:36

Also, the revolutionary left is too obsessed with isms.

Oh I'm sorry, Reformer and Revisioner.

RGacky3

23rd February 2011, 06:09

If you are talking about a general strike as a tactic for an immediate revolution then I would oppose it.

Why? If a general strike was possible for immediate revolution as sometimes it is ... why would you oppose it?

At that point your DEFENDING capitalism.

I am saying, "If you try to get it suddenly, you will most definitely fail. And there's not guarantee that we can ever actually fully achieve it, even slowly, because its a pretty crazy idea."

Socialism is a pretty crazy idea??? Really? Democracy is crazy?

Whats crazy is Capitalism, theres a derivative industry 4 times the world GDP, people starve even though there is way more than enough to feed everyone, the 1 top 1% control more wealth than the bottom 90% ... Thats crazy.

But whatever, you obviously did'nt have strong principles from the begining.

B5C

23rd February 2011, 06:34

Socialism is a pretty crazy idea??? Really? Democracy is crazy?

Whats crazy is Capitalism, theres a derivative industry 4 times the world GDP, people starve even though there is way more than enough to feed everyone, the 1 top 1% control more wealth than the bottom 90% ... Thats crazy.

But whatever, you obviously did'nt have strong principles from the begining.

If we can't get rid of capitalism. Why not we control it and domesticate it? Korea, USSR, Cuba, and China never really got rid of all of capitalist ideas. Why? Chances are we could be evolved with the idea of capitalism. We maybe program with the idea of barter and trade to communicate and deal with other humans instead of killing them and stealing.

RGacky3

23rd February 2011, 08:31

I knew that post would throw people off.

You are for zero growth? When most economies are hopelessly inadequate to meet the ends of their citizens? Redistribution does not solve anything if there is almost nothing to redistribute. A country must have a decent GDP per capita in order to redistribute it equally and justly.

I'm talking about 0% growth globally, there is TONS to redistribute as of now, when I say 0% growth I don't actually mean neccessarily always 0% growth, but I mean a non-profit economy. capitalism REQUIRES around 3% growth to be healthy, a non-profit economy does not.

FYI Gack: There are some people who aren't lazy and enjoy work.

What do you think people will do on the time they are not working 4 hour days 3 day weeks? OH yeah, doing work THEY want to do, for themselves, learning, building their own lives, living.

Plus if you enjoy work, work more, I'm saying thats all thats really neccessary.

I'm I a slave? No
Do I get treated fairly? Yes

Well, if you feel your treated fairly then why change anything? If things cannot get better.

And I consider wage systems to be wage slavery.

If they start treating me like crap. I can leave I am not stuck. Also note if they want to keep me. They better start treating me fairly. I was one of only TWO people kept on from being seasonal. When I found out I had a late closing shift on Saturday and I had to come in at 4 AM on Sundays. I went too my boss and quckily got that fixed. They didn't say "Deal with it." They knew it is wrong for an employee to get less then 4-5 hours of sleep.

If they are willing to work with me and treat me fairly. I would be proud and sacrifice a little to keep my job and keep the company stable.

There were REALLY nice slave owners in the past that gave their lives much better lives than free men, most did not, does the exception justify the rule???

No it does'nt.

I had to work in a crappy company that treated me like a slave. It was called Rent-A-Center. If you want a perfect example how brutal Capitalism works. You should work for Rent-A-Center.

Thats most of Capitalism, thats most of America.

Chances are we could be evolved with the idea of capitalism. We maybe program with the idea of barter and trade to communicate and deal with other humans instead of killing them and stealing.

You know who answers those questions? Scentists, do some reading intead of saying "maybe" and "chances are" about things that there are studies on and are researchable.

Sinred

23rd February 2011, 14:08

Unfortunately the parties are just pure crap. A belief in Social Democracy is more of an individual responsibility and yet we have to organize. 3rd party system can not work in the United States.

Well, then it kinda loses its whole point if you ask me, especially since social democracy by its very nature (ideological, historical, sociological etc.) are one with parliamentarism.

Further, the ideology of SD is a dead-end as well. I cant see how on earth somebody would think we can reform capitalism over to socialism. Its unhistorical and most of all a useless try which only works as class treason. The pattern is always the same, when they have to choose between revolution or capitalism, they always choose capitalism. Pathetic.
Why would you as a socialist ever want to embrace such an ideology?

Sinred

23rd February 2011, 14:34

If we can't get rid of capitalism. Why not we control it and domesticate it? Korea, USSR, Cuba, and China never really got rid of all of
capitalist ideas.

No but it also was the first trys of socialism, a first wave if you want to. Social Democracy didn't come close to it. Its laughable at best.
If the fall of first wave socialism lost the race, the SD didn't even joined it in the first place.

Why? Chances are we could be evolved with the idea of capitalism. We maybe program with the idea of barter and trade to communicate and deal with other humans instead of killing them and stealing.

Yeah thats a comforting idea, letting our grand grand children transform into the very essence of capitalism. A neoliberal homos economus. A human based on self-interests, lack of empathy, narcissistic traits, envious and who view kindness as weakness with a body fed up with toxins and trans fat. If you think capitalism fosters its human beings (in anyway) towards a better thinking, culture, living, empathy and further hope we can evolve into it, you are not a socialist and you really shouldnt even try posing as one.

Second: capitalism is not an idea, its a self-preservative economic system.

StockholmSyndrome

23rd February 2011, 15:01

Socialism is a pretty crazy idea??? Really? Democracy is crazy?

I didn't say democracy, did I? I said socialism, as in the idea of a global socialist reorganization the likes of what I described in an earlier post on this thread.

Whats crazy is Capitalism, theres a derivative industry 4 times the world GDP, people starve even though there is way more than enough to feed everyone, the 1 top 1% control more wealth than the bottom 90% ... Thats crazy.

But whatever, you obviously did'nt have strong principles from the begining.

Yeah, but these were never anybody's idea. They are unfortunate bi-products that can be dealt with accordingly.

RGacky3

23rd February 2011, 15:07

I didn't say democracy, did I? I said socialism

Socialism IS democracy, its democracy extended to the economy.

as in the idea of a global socialist reorganization the likes of what I described in an earlier post on this thread.

Obviously thats not gonna happen in our life time, but do you believe the economy should be democratic?
Or do you believe that a democratic economy would be bad, it would'nt work.

Where do you stand, What should we fight towards? Should we defend Capitalist institutions?

Yeah, but these were never anybody's idea. They are unfortunate bi-products that can be dealt with accordingly.

They can be dealt with by fighting against the cause, which is Capitalism, trying to patch up capitalism won't work.

Ask anyone from sweeden.

StockholmSyndrome

23rd February 2011, 15:32

Socialism IS democracy, its democracy extended to the economy.

Obviously thats not gonna happen in our life time, but do you believe the economy should be democratic?
Or do you believe that a democratic economy would be bad, it would'nt work.
I think its rather simplistic to say that economic democracy = socialism. There are plenty of ways that we can subordinate market forces to societal needs through democratic oversight. We could even change existing property relations and still maintain the basic institutions of a capitalist economy. Some might even argue that economic democracy = market economy.

They can be dealt with by fighting against the cause, which is Capitalism, trying to patch up capitalism won't work.

Ask anyone from sweeden.

Don't communists say "but you can't have socialism in one country!" when anyone tries to point to a failed example of that system in one country?

RGacky3

23rd February 2011, 15:45

I think its rather simplistic to say that economic democracy = socialism.

Its the basic principle of democracy.

Some might even argue that economic democracy = market economy.

And those people would be wrong, by definition, because a market economy is 1 dollar one vote, not one man one vote, and some men have all the dollars.

Don't communists say "but you can't have socialism in one country!" when anyone tries to point to a failed example of that system in one country?

Different communists say different things. I don't say that at all, the Leninist states were not socialism in one country, they were basically giant corporatoins.

Revolution starts with U

23rd February 2011, 17:23

I think Stockholme got a good job recently, maybe opened a business or somethng :lol:

(I kid I kid :D)

B5C

23rd February 2011, 18:55

No but it also was the first trys of socialism, a first wave if you want to. Social Democracy didn't come close to it. Its laughable at best.
If the fall of first wave socialism lost the race, the SD didn't even joined it in the first place.

Yeah thats a comforting idea, letting our grand grand children transform into the very essence of capitalism. A neoliberal homos economus. A human based on self-interests, lack of empathy, narcissistic traits, envious and who view kindness as weakness with a body fed up with toxins and trans fat. If you think capitalism fosters its human beings (in anyway) towards a better thinking, culture, living, empathy and further hope we can evolve into it, you are not a socialist and you really shouldnt even try posing as one.

Second: capitalism is not an idea, its a self-preservative economic system.
Capitalism as an economic system is base of the idea of trade and barter. Go pick up an anthropology book.

8y7ZZB6Mt1o

We needed kinship too survive. That created "I scratch your back if you scratch by back" ideals, and that evolved into "Hey I will pay you with these pieces of shiny metal for that horse." Thousands of years later we got Capitalism.

StockholmSyndrome

23rd February 2011, 19:15

We needed kinship too survive. That created "I scratch your back if you scratch by back" ideals, and that evolved into "Hey I will pay you with these pieces of shiny metal for that horse." Thousands of years later we got Capitalism.

You should not try to apply Darwinian evolution to human society. It's called social Darwinism and it's complete hogwash. The leftists on this board will tear you to shreds for it.

B5C

23rd February 2011, 19:19

You should not try to apply Darwinian evolution to human society. It's called social Darwinism and it's complete hogwash. The leftists on this board will tear you to shreds for it.

No, I oppose social darwism. Even Richard Dawkins opposes social darwinism as well. Have you read or seen any of his works?

Also did you ever watch the video I post? It clearly shows that humans are special because we can counter evolution. Also we could have evolved with altruism.

Don't make assumptions.

Revolution starts with U

23rd February 2011, 19:20

"thousands of years later that evolved"
Excellent analysis there chief. No mention of the evolution of material conditions, legal structures, historical phenomena, or people in genereal. Just "thousands of years later x happened."
Capitalism is NOT based off barter and trade any more than any other system is/was. All economies are based off barter and trade (even a socialist one). Capitalism is an economic structure based on private property (ie the homesteader as autocratic decision maker on said property) which promotes economic transaction (ie barter and trade) through market mechanisms.
I've picked up many anthropology books and the so-called "selfish gene" (not a very widely accepted explantion, mind you) does not account for the hundreds of thousands of years of communal property's domination of the economy. Individual property (which was the basis for private property) only developed because the surplus allotted by agriculture created class systems and statism.

B5C

23rd February 2011, 19:26

Capitalism is an economic structure based on private property (ie the homesteader as autocratic decision maker on said property) which promotes economic transaction (ie barter and trade) through market mechanisms.

Which we have for 100,000 of years. We had family leaders making decisions on the land which that family held we had to barter and trade for things with other families.

I've picked up many anthropology books and the so-called "selfish gene" (not a very widely accepted explantion, mind you) does not account for the hundreds of thousands of years of communal property's domination of the economy. Individual property (which was the basis for private property) only developed because the surplus allotted by agriculture created class systems and statism.

Which came out of the one of many branches of human revolution. Capitalism is not a recent idea only developed just a 1,000 years ago.

ComradeMan

23rd February 2011, 19:32

"I've picked up many anthropology books and the so-called "selfish gene" (not a very widely accepted explantion, mind you) does not account for the hundreds of thousands of years of communal property's domination of the economy. Individual property (which was the basis for private property) only developed because the surplus allotted by agriculture created class systems and statism.

Yeah but what kind of economy are we talking about? Low population subsistance, nomadic and hunter gatherer populations. We cannot compare those societies to modern, industrialised and technological societies with enormous populations- even though it was indeed probably fairer and more egalitarian in some senses.

Revolution starts with U

23rd February 2011, 20:01

Which we have for 100,000 of years. We had family leaders making decisions on the land which that family held we had to barter and trade for things with other families.

Not really. What do you mean by "land that family held?" Hunter-gatherers did not hold land. Many times they would have their ancestral homeland and/or the lands they migrate to and from. But there is scant, if any evidence of indigenous populations thinking of land in territorial claims (a prerequisite for the capitalist super-structure). People generally made their own decisions. The difference is, their "property" was not their own to decide what to do with.
Let me point you to the Nez Perce long standing custom of being able to enter a person's house, even when they're not home, and take what you need (with respect).

Which came out of the one of many branches of human revolution. Capitalism is not a recent idea only developed just a 1,000 years ago.
Can you rephrase that? Im sorry, I don't understand.

Yeah but what kind of economy are we talking about? Low population subsistance, nomadic and hunter gatherer populations. We cannot compare those societies to modern, industrialised and technological societies with enormous populations- even though it was indeed probably fairer and more egalitarian in some senses.
We can compare those societies to our own. The people are no different. The only change has been in the legal super-structure.

#FF0000

23rd February 2011, 20:04

Which came out of the one of many branches of human revolution. Capitalism is not a recent idea only developed just a 1,000 years ago.

Capitalism is a system that developed ~200 years ago. Not an idea.

ComradeMan

23rd February 2011, 20:05

We can compare those societies to our own. The people are no different. The only change has been in the legal super-structure.

Can you prove that assertion? Are you saying that modern humans products of modern society are going to be identical to neolithic people? The only difference is the superstructures- but those superstructures are human-made and thus a product of the evolution of humans and their responses to new situations. The responses to the situations of neolithic hunter gatherers cannot really be compared to the needs of an ever increasingly urban and industrialised humanity dependent on technology.

Revolution starts with U

23rd February 2011, 20:06

Technically it is an idea. But one that creates a system. The idea is private property and the commodization of EVERYTHING. This creates a legal and political structure that protects the interests of the ownership sector of society.

Revolution starts with U

23rd February 2011, 20:10

Can you prove that assertion? Are you saying that modern humans products of modern society are going to be identical to neolithic people? The only difference is the superstructures- but those superstructures are human-made and thus a product of the evolution of humans and their responses to new situations. The responses to the situations of neolithic hunter gatherers cannot really be compared to the needs of an ever increasingly urban and industrialised humanity dependent on technology.

I think I misunderstood you. You are correct that the needs of a neolithic society are vastly different than the needs of even a bronze age society.
What I was saying is that we are not different than neolithic people in any natural sense. Brain size is roughly the same (evidence says our brains are actually getting smaller). Intelligence is roughly the same (raw intelligence, not learned knowledge). So in this sense, we can compare the people of neolithic to the people of the technological age.

StockholmSyndrome

23rd February 2011, 20:12

No, I oppose social darwism. Even Richard Dawkins opposes social darwinism as well. Have you read or seen any of his works?

Also did you ever watch the video I post? It clearly shows that humans are special because we can counter evolution. Also we could have evolved with altruism.

Don't make assumptions.

I didn't say the video was incorrect. I think you are the one who is too quick to make assumptions based on the ideas of people like Darwin and Dawkins. Nowhere in the video does it say, "our genes are the reason that we have capitalism." The point of the statement at the end of the clip, that humans are the first species to separate ourselves from evolution and thus reshape our world, is the exact opposite as saying, "our current society is justified because it is an outgrowth of evolution and natural selection," which is what it seemed like you were doing.

L.A.P.

23rd February 2011, 20:14

Capitalism as an economic system is base of the idea of trade and barter. Go pick up an anthropology book.

8y7ZZB6Mt1o

We needed kinship too survive. That created "I scratch your back if you scratch by back" ideals, and that evolved into "Hey I will pay you with these pieces of shiny metal for that horse." Thousands of years later we got Capitalism.

Using Darwin's theory of evolution to defend capitalism is showing lack of understanding of evolution. "Survival of the fittest" only applied when it was species against species, not internal fighting within a species. Part of the reason why humans even survived is because of our cooperation with each other due to us being social animals, so if we had that capitalistic mentality in ancient times we would be extinct. If anything, capitalism goes against human nature.

Sinred

23rd February 2011, 20:17

Capitalism as an economic system is base of the idea of trade and barter. Go pick up an anthropology book.

Before all that, take a visit to wikipedia ((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)) and start with taking a big ass reflection ovar what kinda "antrophology" books your reading.
Also take up some reading about national economy and/or basic marxism while you are at it.
Capitalism is a system of generating capital from workers in a production into the hands of private owners. Not an idea of trade and barter.
Especially since barter and trade existed way before capitalism.
You thought we anticapitalists were against trade and barter?
You kinda new to this whole politic-thingy right...?

We needed kinship too survive. That created "I scratch your back if you scratch by back" ideals, and that evolved into "Hey I will pay you with these pieces of shiny metal for that horse." Thousands of years later we got Capitalism.
Already seen the whole documentary from beginning to start, i like it.
Im a big fan of Dawkins actually and seen everything downloadable of him.
That you however, draw the conclusion of evolving with capitalism out of his "selfish gene"-theory is a remarking feat indeed. Especially since capitalism is a barrier against altruism and are a system based on competition, not cooperation.

Also, your view of human history is somewhat defunct (to put it nicely), but i guess a liberal would buy it.
You take human trade & barter and use it as a key to explain human history, which is as retarded as to take birdwatching or masturbation to do the same. The history of human history is a history of class struggle and different kinds of productions all based of the material circumstances. Not secondary phenomenas to it or isolated ideas outside the material world. Stupid.